# C_2018161EN.01005601.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/56

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-143/18)

(2018/C 161/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

| — | order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned.

---